89 réponses à ce sujet

[1st pharoah]

The online thing would end up as all MMORPGs do anyway and make it a "who ever has the best stuff wins" fps type charade. It stops being about the game and starts being about who can kill who..I wish a game would come out that makes people actually have to create all their magic items that's not bound to them and if another player kills that character can take everything on the corpse (even it's gold) and the dead one has to create another character. Oh, yeah for those that would have 2+ accounts, the fight could be only between 2 characters at any time. Of course after the fight the winning character would pop to a random spot in the world (a safe spot) so other players couldn't just then kill that winner. I get tired of the item and gold farming MMORPGs lead to.

[Varenus Luckmann]

Bio-Boy 3000 wrote...



Seeing how the game is portrayed to
the mass audence, are you all that surprised that this does come up at
all? Its just another evolution in gaming that online aspects are a
must for the industry. Everything is going online and requiring a
social aspect of sorts built in. Teh futar iz 'ere!

I hate postmodernity.

Wtb Radical Tradition.

Dennis Carpenter wrote...

Personally
I think it wont die because of all the METAGAMERS out there from WOW,
EQ and the like. Seems to me they are more concerned with buffs and
max-builds than an intriguing game with a good storyline.
The day
I saw my friend blocking attacks from chickens in a barnyard was it for
me...He said he was trying to improve his parrying ability so he had
been sitting their just blocking chickens...........just another reason
why the MMO groups are not for me. Hope DA:O never goes
there.

Wow. That'll never work. All critters (including
chickens) are level 1, and the gaining rate
of any ability is dependant on the relation between your current
ability and the level of your opponent.

So gaining block from chickens just won't cut it.

I am deeply saddened by the fact that I know these things.
It is indeed retarded that gaming is turning into metagaming.

I
suppose that in a wierd sort of way, the real gamers are the ones that
do not metagame, whilst the metagamers often are the ones continously
applying themselves to the 'gamer' identity.

Hacks, I say. Hacks.

[SheffSteel]

The single-player roleplaying game is an impossible ideal.

It's something that can be approached to an extent. What we have in DA:O is more of a choose-your-own-adventure game. You get multiple choices, you get into fights, and the game leads you through a story.

And that's okay. It just isn't a role-playing game.

Role-playing requires interaction with other people (one of the older definitions of pencil/paper RPG is "improvisational radio theatre") until such time as we have far smarter AI than currently.


ETA
I have no interest in MMOs or PVP or arena gameplay.
I would like the option to play co-op with a small number of friends.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 26 octobre 2009 - 06:27 .

[BewareTheDrow]

Xyan wrote...

And definitely no for now.. A good single-player experience is worth a lot more than an average multi-players experience. That's why BG > NWN.

Simple and true.

[Kevin Lynch]

'Course, you're asking a forum full of folks that are already stoked for the single-player DA:O whether they'd want an online feature added in, so you're bound to get a chorus of NOs, even if there are some that wouldn't mind the addition. Some may actually prefer it.



Me = noperooni.

[BomimoDK]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

'Course, you're asking a forum full of folks that are already stoked for the single-player DA:O whether they'd want an online feature added in, so you're bound to get a chorus of NOs, even if there are some that wouldn't mind the addition. Some may actually prefer it.

Me = noperrooni.

*usual homer voice* "stupid flanders"
you're right about the chorus, but i'm quite happy with this commubity as the only online feature.

[AzmodantheRed]

Gaviteros wrote...

Player made NWN style Modular Online connectivity? Perhaps.
I do not want it in the single player box. I am all for modders making campaigns that allow people to log on with each other because that is not made on the developer's time.

We don't need WoW or EQ or Fable 2 with this game.

Seconded.
Love the persistant worlds btw.

[briskojr]

Ehh, online play? No.. LAN play? Yes please. I'm perfectly happy with it being solo, but I'd enjoy the option of playing through with a friend on a second play-through.

[Achromatis]

No.



Go play an online game if you want to play online.

[DASockDA]

The only way online would work is if it wasn't the MMO style, but rather the BG2 style. You host the server yourself for 3 people who you invite. This way, you control the environment. The ONLY way an MMO could handle being a quality and immersive RPG is if they had strictly controlled rules about role-playing, and had no quests that couldn't be repeatable. If you had a quest to kill John the Butcherer (and completed it), and then someone new came along and said "I have to kill John the Butcherer!", then there'd be a serious problem with continuity.

The only game I've ever found that works great as an MMO with quality RP and immersion is private ran UO servers. The problem is, that game is incredibly dated and not terribly fun.

In short, DAO would work as a DnD type campain, but not as an MMO.

Modifié par DASockDA, 27 octobre 2009 - 12:04 .

[DungeonMaster1260]

i definitly think they should make this game online i was dissapointed when i bought it and it wasnt online..i was told it was...but with the huge realm and the party play this game would be awsome online

[ShaggyWolf]

This game has so much epic win in it, why would you want to share it?

[XxSaxnotxX]

Maybe I'hope it .....

[nmal015]

BoomWav wrote...

Dennis Carpenter wrote...

Personally I think it wont die because of all the METAGAMERS out there from WOW, EQ and the like. Seems to me they are more concerned with buffs and max-builds than an intriguing game with a good storyline.
The day I saw my friend blocking attacks from chickens in a barnyard was it for me...He said he was trying to improve his parrying ability so he had been sitting their just blocking chickens...........just another reason why the MMO groups are not for me. Hope DA:O never goes there.

Its worst in oblivion. In it, If you want to max your char, you must put your most used skills as minor skills. This way, you can block chicken while impoving without leveling. The goal is to clearly plan your leveling span so that you boost major skill only to level while always making sure you had +5 to your stats when you do.

Seriously, go read Oblivion leveling advices, it's ridiculous how flawed Oblivion is.

Flawed once you started exploiting it. For most players they wouldnt even realize how it was flawed. I think it was a very creative system.

[Erakleitos]

Arttis wrote...

I would like 1v1 or group vs group fights in the arena against other people.It would have to have no rewards for doing it though.

I would love that but it would be a contest about who cheats more...

[Peeker2009]

I'm not quite sure what the fuss is about multiplayer. I do understand how one bad experience can colour opinions forever, and that people on this forum are more single-player oriented, but an emphatic "no", without explanation, leaves no room for discussion. Yes, DO:A is the story driven rpg we all love, but it also contains a powerful engine that could be used to open pathways to new experiences.



My own experience with multiplayer:



I was really disappointed with my first online game - Ultima Online (grrr) - I was hunted like an animal, killed and skinned, 3 times on the first day, logged off and never went back. If I remember rightly, I did send off an indignant letter to the company.



I didn't try multiplayer again until NWN 1 came along (Thanks again Bioware). At that time I was lucky enough to log on to a terrific server, run by friendly, creative people, and overseen by responsible DMs, who didn't put up with the kind of anti-social behaviour that can ruin the game for everyone else. I stayed for roughly 3 or 4 years, became a DM myself, and put some of my own creative energies into making quests.



Admittedly, it wasn't everything I personally want out of a game. i.e., too much emphasis on power over role-playing, and even with new quests being added every other week, it could get repetitive at times. And I absolutely hate the concept of xp grinding. But as long as I kept my own ego in check, avoided PVP except for giggles in the arena, I could play any way I chose, and as a DM/minor developer I could provide some fun for those who preferred questing.



I got to know (as well as u can on the internet) lovely people from all around the world. It also provided those who were housebound, due to sickness or other reasons, with a creative and social outlet; taught others how to play with and not against eachother. Yes, problems arose between players at times, as they can in any social activity, but as the server was run by mature people they were dealt with fairly. Dms are human too though of course.



Eventually, as many of my oldest friends left over time, and I felt that I wanted to experience more of the "what's around the next corner?" rpg moments (like in DA:O), I left too, sad to be saying goodbye, but grateful for all the fun and friendship over the years.



To sum up, it wasn't the perfect gaming experience by any means, and I'm not sure that personally I am ready for another go, but I also can't forget all the fun times, and wouldn't want to deny others the opportunity to have such an experience.



So I say "yes" to multiplayer, with some clauses: That the only thing the developer has to do is release the game engine/toolset (already happened, though I hear it's pretty tricky) and all the extra work is done by hobby developers, therefore not subtracting one iota from the single player game. That they are small boutique servers rather than mmos (though that may just be prejudice arising from my short time on UO).



If it takes nothing away from our own enjoyment of the game, isn't a bit churlish to simply reject out-of-hand the possibility for others to play the way they want to?

[Taura-Tierno]

I hope they don't make it an MMO. Something like Baldur's Gate, where you can play through the story with friends? Yeah, that'd work. But I don't want an MMO. I dislike MMO's, generally, and grow tired of them rather quickly. There are so many MMO's out there, but there are only a few fantastic single player RPG's. This is one of them. I want it to be single-player (or just co-ed with friends). I don't want it turn into something where you just kill monsters and stuff. Yes, an MMO is a very social activity, but I can get my boost of online social life at other places.



And in my opinion, this is a great RPG. It's role-playing. Not to the extent you can role-play in a non-computer game RP, but still. I classify this as more RPG than any MMO I've played. I suppose you could call both role-playing, but in different ways. I definitely prefer the single-player option to MMO.



So that's a huge "no".

[Bhatair]

Nah, it just wouldn't fit in a game like this. I imagine one person would be terribly bored while the other went through all the dialogue.

[BroBear Berbil]

No. This game is a fantastic single-player RPG and there's no need to muck it up with multiplayer.



If, at some point down the line, they decide to use the IP for an online game I probably wouldn't be opposed to it and I'd probably buy it but for now I'd rather see a DA 2 that's single-player.

[MprezdNZ]

I think this would have been a terrible multiplayer experience. Because someone is always rushing through when you do multiplayer co-op. You would lose the story, and all the interactions and dialogue.

[Peeker2009]

The OP's question is about whether an online feature should be made available, and doesn't ask whether you would use it, or even whether you like online participation personally. There is quite a difference I think. Why is it that most people (EDIT) seem unable to answer with "Perhaps, but personally I would never use it." or "Okay, as long as ...." or "no skin off my nose"?

Or does the problem lie with the use of the word "should" in the original question?

Also, in the case of NWN, most of the online servers didn't use the OC, but created completely new worlds/stories using the NWN toolset. I agree that it probably wouldn't work with the original story, but I would like to hear from those with more modding skills than I have whether the toolset could in fact be used to create completely different adventures where every character was equally important to the game. Perhaps this just wouldn't work with DA:O's toolset , I really don't know.

Sure, I think everyone is interested in ppl's personal experience with online gaming, but it would be nice to see it applied more directly to the original question. If ppl think it would potentially detract from their own enjoyment of the original game, it would be interesting, and probably more relevant, to hear about that as well.

*Sigh* submits edit 3 times again

Modifié par Peeker2009, 19 janvier 2010 - 09:58 .

[TyroneTasty]

LOL I'm glad you made this thread so I can read through all of the people's reactions. Personally I don't feel an online feature would add much to this game, it's just not what this kind of game is about. I mean, it's not really about questing, it's about your character and their decisions, whether your friend is there or not has really no effect on the game's central focus.

[Noobius_Maximo]

Hell no. The game is awesome, why ruin it?